Monday, November 30, 2009

 

Basi-Virk wire tap alleges ex-Minister of Finance involved ...

.
Bill Tieleman, May 4, 2007:


RCMP: failure to communicate?

The RCMP's role in the Basi-Virk investigation also took a beating from the defence in the past few days.

{Big snip removed from an excellent 2007 column .. recommended reading} ...

... Erik Bornmann was partners with Brian Kieran and former LPC (Liberal Party of Canada) BC president Jamie Elmhirst at Pilothouse Public Affairs.

Pilothouse was retained by BC Rail privatization bidder OmniTRAX to conduct government relations on its behalf and according to court documents, OmniTRAX spent nearly $300,000 on Pilothouse's services.

But when the final results of the BC Rail privatization were announced, OmniTRAX had lost out to CN Rail.

When the police executed search warrants on the B.C. legislature, they also searched the Pilothouse office and Bornmann's Vancouver home-office looking for evidence.

Soon afterwards the RCMP and the Special Prosecutor cut an immunity deal with Bornmann to testify against his former friends Basi and Virk, who had all worked together on the Paul Martin leadership campaign, McCullough outlined.

And it was that deal with Bornmann and the fact that the defence says it does not have any of the details about it, that troubles McCullough.

McCullough alleged that Bornmann and partner Kieran were both allowed to continue their lucrative lobbying business despite allegedly admitting to "bribing public officials" because of the deal.

He further alleged that Bornmann was also allowed to complete law school and begin articling at prestigious Toronto law firm McCarthy Tétrault despite his involvement in the BC Rail charges because of the special deal.

'Unfathomable'

McCullough said it was "unfathomable" that a lengthy statement Bornmann gave investigators in February 2005 was not disclosed to the defence.

"The Bornmann statement deals exclusively with Mr. Virk and Mr. Basi and Aneal Basi. It is to do with BC Rail and it is to do with the payments," McCullough said.

"Bornmann was not a bit player but the key player, a witness whose credibility was sullied from the get go and we don't get a statement from him," McCullough complained.

McCullough continued by alleging Bornmann was an unreliable witness who made false accusations against another likely Crown witness, Bruce Clark, brother of Christy Clark and an executive member of the Liberal Party of Canada BC.

"Bornmann provided statements regarding another potential witness. Mr. Bornmann alleged Mr. Clark bribed Mr. Basi," McCullough alleged. "A purported payment to Basi from Clark regarding Pacific Western Brewery -- Erik Bornmann stated Clark paid Basi for the information."

"Mr. Bornmann may have made one too many statements," McCullough continued. "Now the defence can rebut that statement. We understand that the allegation is not only untrue but it unfortunately compromised the good name of another. There's an indication he's making it up as he goes along."

"How did the police follow that up? Whether Mr. Bornmann was simply making false allegations in respect to Mr. Clark and Mr. Basi?" McCullough asked.

[Bruce Clark has previously told the Globe and Mail that he has already been investigated and cleared by police in that matter.]

Allegations and accusations

And so it goes in courtroom 54 as the allegations and accusations pile up.
What's sometimes stunning to remember given the number of revelations is that this is merely the preliminary defence disclosure application.

The defence will make a Charter of Rights application once this stage is complete and then, unless Justice Bennett halts the case altogether, the trial itself will begin and run for at least six months.

That means many if not all of the allegations to date will return to the courtroom but this time with witnesses called, cross-examination and evidence entered -- evidence that can be examined by journalists and the public.

During the current disclosure application stage, no evidence has been presented for the media or spectators in the public gallery to review.

But that hasn't stopped the defence from using the B.C. legislature raid case to give British Columbians its angle of view on the machinations of political power and the intersection of money, influence and government, even if only through allegations unproven in court.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Comments:
This case must proceed if for no other reason than to allow the public to examine the evidence. If it gets thrown out after the fact, at least there may be an airing of exactly how we lost a money-making railway for less than half its true value.
 
SiG,

I agree with you 100% except for one thing ...

the true value of BC Rail was not entirely in tonnage or financial reports,

as it was in its integrity with knitting together the towns and villages of the provinces,

assuring their production got to market and their necessities brought in.

In honourable government hands, BC Rail was able to continue serving those far-flung communities during hard times, topping up again when markets bounced back.

That, I think, was its true value.

It's ironic, isn't it, that BC Rail did all that -- and made good money too.
.
 
Just thought I would mention this - remember the immunity granted an Indian in the Air India Trial - when he came to the witness stand he could not remember anything, or would not answer.

That immunity was granted before the trial. It could happen again. Art
 
.
I mentioned to Art that I thought "Contempt of Court" charges would follow.

He replied: "By the way Mary, that Indian got away with it, was not charged with obstruction or anything else."

Doggone it, does this mean that people can discuss a serious promise, negotiate the terms, write it all down, sign it ... then ignore it, like it never happened?

and there's no penalty?
.
 
Wire Taps, eh?

Take a look at what Bill Teileman has on his Railway, A to Z Post Published: December 29, 2008.

Its November 30 today and there's a 2:46 PM comment rewritten by Mr. T that is basically asking "Who's Dave?" because it certainly doesn't look like Dave Basi was the one that got the first cheque from Erik Bornman from what the wiretappers recorded.


"That in an intercepted call on Oct. 22, 2003, Basi and Reichert first talk about Bob Virk and then Basi asks: "Is there a question about a cheque for the Camosun guys? Reichert says Dave has the first one.""


Reichert says "Dave has the first one."

Reichert is talking to Dave!

Who's Dave?

Is there someplace where the public can see more of the Wiretaps? Maybe the RCMP have misunderstood what was said.
 
Mary, for the reason you state, that is why I said less than half. We have lost a good deal of sovereignty with that railway. We (particularly the Interior and the North) are now dictated to by capitalists to the south.
 
"Doggone it, does this mean that people can discuss a serious promise, negotiate the terms, write it all down, sign it ... then ignore it, like it never happened?

and there's no penalty?"

Mary, From what I've read, I don't think they even wrote the deal down.
 
SiG,

If they didn't write the immunity agreement down,

then, the way I read that Policy Manual,

it isn't really a deal.

And they gotta have a deal

discussed, understood, written down, agreed, signed, and distributed before the trial ...

that's how I read the Policy Manual.

What's even more puzzling to me is, if the judge takes the opposite view, like the Special Prosecutor was saying about deciding on Bornmann's immunity AFTER he has given testimony ...

doesn't that place the judge in error?

and wouldn't that mean ... oh, no ... not another appeal ... !!!
.
 
BC Mary,

Please say you are saving all of this invaluable information... And backing it up so it does not get deleted like those government emails. This is going to be a great capstone for the person who writes the book (hint, hint Robin)... I wonder if the Soup Nazi will endorse it?

Thanks again, wonderful job!
 
Well, I think given her conduct of proceedings so far, I think it's a given that Justice McKenzie doesn't give a rats-ass for missing paperwork and her decision will be of the "let's get on with it" variety we've already seen and which seems clearly part of the "marching orders" behind her appointment to replace Justice Bennett, whose rulings on evidence and other matters caused the government and their corporate sponsors so much grief.

But consider the shoddy background to the Bornmann deal in the larger context. This is only one of MANY suspect aspects of this case, from the original warrants to the exclusion of elected officials from being investigated and beyond and the complicated delays (most at Crown's instigation), which cast a shadow on the whole proceeding. Not that any of what we've seen so far has caused a mistrial, or that any questionable evidence or lack of evidence is going to prevent Justice McKenzie from "getting on with it".

Tainted witnesses, secret witnesses, secret trials, secret evidence, witnesses who won't testify (Kinsella), witnesses who will never testify but should be forced to (any number of cabinet ministers and HM Gordo), complex interrelationships between the BC government and governing party and the RCMP and Crown Counsel.....

It leaves me with a kind of "numb" feeling, and the knowledge that some picayune, otherwise innocuous matter, will be used as a pretext to shut the trial down before it's "gotten on with"....so that the mass of evidence is removed from public view......and the truly guilty are let to continue their rape of BC's democratic processes and its economic infrastructure, and can strut around the Olympics without any stain on their reputations.

And we know from what happened to Amy Goodman that any outside reporters or bloggers who try to take up this story will be herded up and taken to the border.....

I do hope they try it with Stephen Colbert, though.....
 
May 10 2008 Bill T's blog

http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/05/no-written-immunity-deal-for-bornmann.html

No written immunity deal for Bornmann, Crown claims in Basi-Virk trial - to defence disbelief; case adjourns till Tuesday
Crown opposes defence request for Special Prosecutor statement on what happened with Bornmann immunity deal in Basi-Virk case


Key Crown witness Erik Bornmann has no written immunity from prosecution agreement in the B.C. Legislature raid case, a special prosecutor told B.C. Supreme Court Thursday.

That provoked an exasperated response from defence lawyers, who are demanding that senior Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino make a statement on what they still call a Crown immunity deal.

Justice Elizabeth Bennett got the surprise answer from Special Prosecutor Janet Winteringham, who has handled most Crown duties during Berardino’s unexplained absence from the proceedings.

“The only question I had – was there an immunity agreement as outlined in Crown policy and the answer is there was not. But there’s no written agreement signed by Mr. Bornmann?” Bennett asked.

“No, there’s not, “Winteringham replied.
 
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Basi-Virk case raises many questions Premier Gordon Campbell could and should answer now
Bill Tieleman’s 24 Hours Column
Tuesday May 29, 2007

So many questions

By BILL TIELEMAN

http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/05/basi-virk-case-raises-many-questions.html

"There are dozens of unanswered questions in the B.C. Legislature raid case, including some that Premier Gordon Campbell could answer today.

On June 4, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett may provide the means for many questions to be addressed when she rules on a defence disclosure application."


Do we have a copy of Bennett's June 4 decision?
 
BC Mary, I realize how "near and dear" Jag Bains is to your reporter soul, maybe one of your next POSTs will have something to do with finding who were members of the "POSSE" of which Jag was one, Jerri, was another, and Sheila was one too.



From Bill T's Blog:

"Stacking radio phone calls

Also included in McCullough's allegations Monday were statements:

* That in a Nov. 28, 2003, call intercepted by RCMP between Basi and Mike McDonald "they are looking for an e-mail regarding Ms. James's comments. Mike thinks Gary should take a crack at Carole because it was around the budget. Tom -- I believe that is Syer from the premier's office -- is going to talk to Robert," McCullough said.
* That Tom Syer was Premier Campbell's issues management director at the time.
* That in discussing stacking radio show phone calls, David Basi tells Mike McDonald that "it wasn't him making the call but confesses that it was Jag making the call -- Dave was at home. Dave says: 'Don't use Jag or Jerri on Meisner as they have distinctive voices. Sheila is a white girl who also makes fake calls."

* That although there was no discussion in court as to who these parties are, Ben Meisner was at the time a Prince George radio talk show host, while Jag Bains was a Young Liberal introduced in the legislature by Gary Collins in March 2001, along with Aneal Basi, the former government communications aide who is also now charged with breach of trust.

http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/04/premier-gordon-campbell-alleged-to-know.html
 
.
Like, June 4 of what year ... and holy mackeral,

this is the 3rd request

this past hour alone

for BC Mary to research documents ...
.
 
Well, I think given her conduct of proceedings so far, I think it's a given that Justice McKenzie doesn't give a rats-ass for missing paperwork and her decision will be of the "let's get on with it" variety we've already seen and which seems clearly part of the "marching orders" behind her appointment to replace Justice Bennett, whose rulings on evidence and other matters caused the government and their corporate sponsors so much grief.

But consider the shoddy background to the Bornmann deal in the larger context. This is only one of MANY suspect aspects of this case, from the original warrants to the exclusion of elected officials from being investigated and beyond and the complicated delays (most at Crown's instigation), which cast a shadow on the whole proceeding. Not that any of what we've seen so far has caused a mistrial, or that any questionable evidence or lack of evidence is going to prevent Justice McKenzie from "getting on with it".

Tainted witnesses, secret witnesses, secret trials, secret evidence, witnesses who won't testify (Kinsella), witnesses who will never testify but should be forced to (any number of cabinet ministers and HM Gordo), complex interrelationships between the BC government and governing party and the RCMP and Crown Counsel.....

It leaves me with a kind of "numb" feeling, and the knowledge that some picayune, otherwise innocuous matter, will be used as a pretext to shut the trial down before it's "gotten on with"....so that the mass of evidence is removed from public view......and the truly guilty are let to continue their rape of BC's democratic processes and its economic infrastructure, and can strut around the Olympics without any stain on their reputations.

And we know from what happened to Amy Goodman that any outside reporters or bloggers who try to take up this story will be herded up and taken to the border.....

I do hope they try it with Stephen Colbert, though.....
 
This could be one source for Bennett's decision.....

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/07/18/2007BCSC1888.htm

R v Basi Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett

Oral Reasons for Judgment

In Chambers
December 6, 2007

SNIP
"[11] In Leipert, the court makes it clear that once the privilege is found there is no balancing of interests in terms of the privilege or other considerations except innocence at stake as there is, for example, when assessing Crown privilege or public interest immunity: See paragraph 12:

Informer privilege is of such importance that once found, courts are not entitled to balance the benefit enuring from the privilege against countervailing considerations, as is the case, for example, with Crown privilege or privileges based on Wigmore's four-part test: J. Sopinka, S. N. Lederman and A. W. Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), at pp. 805-6. In Bisaillon v. Keable, supra, this Court contrasted informer privilege with Crown privilege in this regard. In Crown privilege, the judge may review the information and in the last resort revise the minister's decisions by weighing the two conflicting interests, that of maintaining secrecy and that of doing justice. The Court stated at pp. 97-98:

This procedure, designed to implement Crown privilege, is pointless in the case of secrecy regarding a police informer. In this case, the law gives the Minister, and the Court after him, no power of weighing or evaluating various aspects of the public interest which are in conflict, since it has already resolved the conflict itself. It has decided once and for all, subject to the law being changed, that information regarding police informers' identity will be, because of its content, a class of information which it is in the public interest to keep secret, and that this interest will prevail over the need to ensure the highest possible standard of justice.

Accordingly, the common law has made secrecy regarding police informers subject to a special system with its own rules, which differ from those applicable to Crown privilege.

[12] Further, the court confirms that the privilege belongs to the Crown, however, the Crown cannot waive the privilege without the informer’s consent. The court points to the fact that where the informer is known, the Crown can contact the informer and “determine the extent of information that can be released without jeopardizing the anonymity of the tipster.” (at para. 19). As pointed out, the most innocuous piece of information could identify the informant."
 
NVG,

I think you're confusing "Jag Bains" with Jasmohan Singh Bains,

neither of whom are near or dear to my heart.

Is it one and the same person?
.
 
"And the very next day the Cat came back, the Cat came back" with:

R v Basi

Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett

Oral Reasons for Judgment

In Chambers
December 7, 2007

[1] THE COURT: These Reasons for Judgment need to be read in conjunction with the reasons given on December 6, 2007, 2007 BCSC 1888, in relation to the informer privilege. I am going to set out more clearly than I did in those reasons, the exact nature of the application before me. There is no longer a ban of publication with respect to these Reasons.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/07/18/2007bcsc1898.htm
 
June 4 is an interesting date...I just ran a search on your blog and a whole bunch of interesting things came up; there is a June 4 ruling in there from Justice Bennett - June 4, 2007, in relation to disclosure. June 4, 2009, however, is the date Assistant Chief Justice showed up in court to try and influence proceedings and, it seems, pressure Justice Bennett. What was with that anyway? Are there any precedents for such an intervention?
 
Not your soul BC Mary, to the "Reporter" in you.
 
A famous line goes "Justice must be SEEN to be done".....we're very far from that in this case, huh? Not the least because not everything can be seen......

There is obviously a big difference between what you can get away with, and what you should do, i.e. in the name of justice. Anne McKenzie please take note.....I invite you to consider your conscience, in respect to "the public good"......

Justice must not only be SEEN to be done. It MUST be done. It's too late to keep it from simply being seen to be done; there are too many questions arising from this case for that.....perhaps pretending to be done is what we're used to getting.....how disappointing for our country if that's the case...
 
The rumor around our VicPD briefing room is that one of the senior officers is being investigated ...

[BC Mary says: I'M SORRY THAT THE REST OF THIS COMMENT HAD TO BE REMOVED FOR LEGAL REASONS.

[I THANK THE SENDER FOR KEEPING US INFORMED AS WE ARE INTERESTED TO KNOW HOW THIS SITUATION HAS WORKED OUT FOR ALL OF YOU. THANKS.]
.
 
Wow. There are more worms in this apple than an orchard has apples...and so many stones unturned still....

Our country operates in silence "for legal reasons"....the implication of Anonmous 3:23's post is that the investigation may be political in nature, or have a poiltical impact, or is relevant to this case in some way. Why else post it here?

I'll be patient with my curiosity, but sounds real juicy...

In relation to all that we have seen, and have yet to see (such as the item above, once it becomes known...if ever); it's almost too much of a cliche, but a trenchant one, to cite Shaekspear's lines

oh what tangled webs we weave, when we practice to deceive...

Kind of sums up the Liberal Party, CanWest, the courts, the Crown, the RCMP, the media - doesn't it?

How many more secret investigations are underway, whether in the RCMP or outside of it....

I know, I know, national security, privacy act, fairness of process etc....but all those rules are used to weave the "tangled web"....
 
I'm not suggesting guilt by association, but I'm sure glad that this is still on the internet.

http://canadaland.tribe.net/thread/27466ce6-ce8e-4973-84c5-a07ccce9327c

Minister's assistant, 7 others charged with drug offences
topic posted Thu, September 16, 2004 - 9:26 AM by Sinja

Search conditions: Amar Bajwa BC Liberal


Amar Bajwa was one of the visitors that the Collins welcomed to the the House along with Aneal Basi and Jag Bains.

Aneal Basi is Dave Basi's brother, Bobby Virk is a cousin to Dave, therefore Aneal. Jag is Dave and Aneal's cousin.......

Mandeep Sandhu is a cousin of Victoria police Const. Ravinder Dosanjh

Sandhu's sister is married to Amar Bajwa

Dave Basi orchestrated Sandhu's election to the federal Liberal Party executive in Equimalt-Juan de Fuca on Dec. 7, 2003
 
Well, Anon 7:43:

Not that it matters to us, but for one thing, you're a bit confused here:


You say: Aneal Basi is Dave Basi's brother, Bobby Virk is a cousin to Dave, therefore Aneal. Jag is Dave and Aneal's cousin.......


Aneal is Dave's cousin,

Bobby Virk is Dave's brother-in-law.


Question: Is Jag Bains the same person as Jasmohan Singh Bains?

If so, J.S. Bains is Dave's cousin ...
.
 
.
COMMENT NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

Thank you. And good luck.
.
 
Jag is (Dave and Aneal's) cousin. or

Siblings Dave and Aneal are Jag's cousin

or to put it another way, in your own words BC Mary:

"The word on the street was that Jas Bains was going to be the person taking over," Ms. Winteringham said.

Mr. Bains is Mr. Basi's cousin.

That drug investigation identified Ravinder Singh Dosanjh, who was then a Victoria police constable, and Mandeep Singh Sandhu as other persons of interest. Both are related to Mr. Basi.



Now BC Mary do you think that Jag and Jas Bains are two different people or the same person?
 
Anon 5:33,

First you'll need to convince us that Aneal Basi and Dave Basi are brothers.
I don't think so. I think they are cousins.

I believe that Jasmohan Singh Bains is also a cousin of Dave Basi.

But whether Jas and Jag are the same person -- I don't think so. That's why I was asking you.

OK?
.
 
"Aneal Basi, David's cousin, faces a money laundering charge connected to the alleged payment of bribes." -

Bill Tieleman's blog


Sure seems like a lot of these guys are related to the crime scenes, and each other.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home